Globe Construction Company v. Humphrey
| Decision Date | 31 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15669.,15669. |
| Citation | 229 F.2d 148 |
| Parties | GLOBE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., Neil Christopher and Hans Schlesinger, individually and as Officers of said Company, Appellants, v. G. M. HUMPHREY, Secretary of Treasury of the United States, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Moise S. Steeg, Jr., Louis G. Shushan, New Orleans, La., for appellants.
M. Hepburn Many, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., George R. Blue, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and CAMERON, Circuit Judges.
This appeal brings up for review the order of the district judge requiring appellants to comply with a Bureau of Internal Revenue subpoena to produce books and records for the fiscal year 1950. The refusal to comply with the subpoena was based below, and the complaint of the order requiring compliance is based here, upon the ground that the taxes for that year were barred by the statute of limitations, and that, for want of sufficient "allegations of fact to reasonably justify a suspicion of fraud", the proposed examination would be an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The appellee, pointing to the statute, Sec. 7602(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7602(2), authorizing the issuance of the subpoena, and cases dealing with the exercise of the power, particularly Falsone v. United States, 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 734, insists that the allegations in the affidavit of the officer who issued the subpoena were sufficient to support its issuance and that the order enforcing it should be affirmed.
We agree. Indeed we think: that the insistence of the appellant to the contrary proceeds from a misconception of the nature of the subpoena power at issue here and of the conditions requisite to its exercise.
The action of the district judge in ordering the subpoena enforced was right. His order is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Masters v. Arend
...usually cited as requiring no showing of facts justifying a suspicion of fraud on the basis of its cryptic opinion in Globe Constr. Co. v. Humphrey, 229 F. 2d 148 (1956). See, e. g., O'Connor v. O'Connell, supra, 253 F.2d at 370. Sixth: The Sixth Circuit has held that an agent's testimony t......
-
Foster v. United States
...Corp., 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 872; Zimmermann v. Wilson, 3 Cir., 105 F.2d 583; In re Keegan, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 18 F.Supp. 746; Globe Construction Co. v. Humphrey, 5 Cir., 229 F.2d 148; United States v. Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co., D.C.E.D.Ky., 112 F.Supp. 720, affirmed 6 Cir., 212 F.2d 86. And t......
-
United States v. Harrington
...O'Connor v. O'Connell, 253 F.2d 365 (1st Cir. 1958), followed in Lash v. Nighosian, 273 F.2d 185 (1st Cir. 1959); Globe Construction Co. v. Humphrey, 229 F.2d 148 5th Cir. 1956); DeMasters v. Arend, 313 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1963). This was the conflict which the Supreme Court resolved in Powel......
-
United States v. Powell
...O'Connell, 253 F.2d 365 (C.A.1st Cir. 1958), followed in Lash v. Nighosian, 273 F.2d 185 (C.A.1st Cir. 1959); Globe Construction Co. v. Humphrey, 229 F.2d 148 (C.A.5th Cir. 1956); De Masters v. Arend, 313 F.2d 79 (C.A.9th Cir. 1963). 9 Section 7604(b) provides: 'Whenever any person summoned......